Replacing Einstein Relativity with Bell-Bohm-Lorentz quantum gravity theory
Omina
to be the incompatibility of Einstein’s general theory of relativity
(GTR) and quantum mechanics (QM). The prospects of unifying these two
theories into
a quantum gravity (QG) theory seem insurmountable. Witten’s M-theory
(and string theory in any form), perturbative QG (e.g. the Hartle-
Hawking and Vilenkin proposals), topological Q , loop QG and other
ideas about
QG are not unifications but are speculations about what might belong
to an approximation of a ‘‘complete quantum gravity theory’’ that is
not yet known to be possible or even conceivable. No resolution of the
incompatibility of Einstein’s GTR and QM has been achieved and there
is none in sight. I believe that if we ponder the implications of
Bell’s theorems we should regard GTR the same way that Popper suggests
we regard a Special Theory of Reference (STR). Writing about Aspect’s
confirmation of Bell’s theorems, he writes:
we have to give up Einstein’s interpretation of special relativity and
return to Lorentz’s interpretation and with it to . . . absolute space
and time. . . . The reason for this assertion is that the mere
existence of an infinite velocity entails [the existence] of an
absolute simultaneity and thereby of an absolute space. Whether or not
an infinite velocity can be attained in the transmission of signals is
irrelevant for this argument: the one inertial system for which
Einsteinian simultaneity coincides with absolute simultaneity . . .
would be the system at absolute
rest – whether or not this system of absolute rest can be
experimentally identified. (Popper 1982: xviii, 20)
If Einstein’s STR is endangered by Aspect’s confirmation of Bell’s
theorems, it certainly seems to follow, indeed, ‘‘follow’’ in the
sense of logical implication, that Einstein’s GTR is equally
endangered. Does anybody
really think that instantaneous, non-local, space-like, universe-wide
relations of absolute simultaneity (and EPR causal correlations) are
logically, mathematically and ontologically consistent with Einstein’s
GTR? Of course
not. Why is GTR not subjected to the same criticism as is STR? Could
it be that people are thinking that we must ‘‘make do’’ with GTR ‘‘as
approximately predicatively accurate in many cases’’ until a complete
QG theory is
developed, where this means a unification of GTR with QM? But what
would be the point of unifying it with QM if we know it is
disconfirmed even on the large scales where it is supposed to be most
successful? The
relation of instantaneous, non-local, absolute simultaneity is
universe-wide; this is a large scale feature of the universe. It seems
that to be consistent, we must treat GTR in the same way that we treat
Newton’s theory, namely, that it is false, i.e. we know on the basis
of observational evidence that it does not describe the nature of
physical reality. Physical reality is not a Newtonian reality. Nor is
it a general relativistic reality. Both Newton’s
theory and GTR are useful for making predications within the
approximate limited circumstances, but they do not give us a physical
ontology. They must be interpreted instrumentally, as instrumentally
useful in certain circumstances, but they cannot be given a realist
interpretation. What is a scientific realistic to believe about the
nature of physical reality? A major task is to develop what may be
called a Lorentzian GTR. Popper suggests we should adopt a Lorentzian
theory of inertial motion or reference frames, what might be called a
Lorentzian STR, where ‘‘STR’’ now means a Special Theory of Reference
frames. It is a special theory since
(like Einstein’s) it is only about inertial frames. A Lorentzian GTR
is a General Theory of Reference frames; it is general since it is
about both inertial and non-inertial reference frames. And just as
Einstein’s GTR included a theory of gravity and a cosmology, so must
our Lorentzian GTR.
The key move is to (a) reject Einstein’s classical GTR and substitute
for it a classical neo-Lorentz GTR; and to (b) select only Bohm’s 1952
interpretation of QM, which interprets QM as a supplement to or form
of Newtonian mechanics. As physicists use these terms, a semi-
classical theory quantizes the matter field in the space and time. QED
and QCD are semi-classical theories. Einstein’s GTR, Lorentz’s theory
and Newton’s theory are classical, in that they do not quantize space
and time or matter fields. QG theory quantitates space and time as
well as the matter fields. I believe quantitizing space, time and
gravity can be achieved if we choose a neo-Lorentzian theory of space,
time and gravity and unify it with Bohm’s 1952 interpretation of QM,
which is classical in its approach and is ‘‘a form of classical
mechanics.’’ Specifically, Bohm accepted Halpern’s (1952: 389)
characterization of Bohm’s ‘‘quantum mechanics as a form of classical
mechanics involving special quantum forces.’’ By classical mechanics
Bohm here means Newtonian mechanics, including Euclidean space,
absolute
Newtonian time, and two of Newton’s three laws of motion and either
including or being consistent with gravitational non-inertial motion.
If we give these ideas a neo-Lorentzian formulation, we have a QG
theory,
and the main difficulty no longer is the QM-GTR unification, but
developing a Lorentz GTR that can reproduce the accurate predications
of Einstein’s GTR.
The reasons QG has seemed so difficult to Bohmians is the same sort of
reason other physicists have. The problem with Bohmians is that they
have been trying to unify de Broglie-Bohm theory with Einstein’s GTR,
which is
impossible, since the de Broglie-Bohm theory has a non-local, space-
like, instantaneous, universe-wide, EPR causal correlation among
events and this is logically incompatible with Friedman GTR’s basic
laws that causal correlations are time-like, local, propagated at a
finite velocity (not exceeding that of light) and are non-
instantaneous. However, once we recognize that Aspect’s confirmation
of Bell’s theorems disconfirms Einstein’s GTR no less than they do his
STR, then we should look to the theory that has traditionally been
regarded as observationally equivalent to Einstein’s STR, namely,
Lorentz’s STR, and see if we can generalize this theory. Once we do,
we will find that Bohm’s 1952 interpretation includes part of a
Lorentzian GTR.
A Bohm-Lorentz QG consists of ideas and equations scattered throughout
the physics literature and which have not been conjoined and organized
and presented as a theory. An introductory outline of how these ideas
can
be unified is the project of this paper. A central claim is that a neo-
Lorentzian GTR can incorporate the results of the neo-Newtonian
cosmology and gravity theory presented by McCrea and Milne (1934) and
developed
by Bondi (1960), North (1965), Sciama (1971) Peebles (1993, esp. p.
48), Harrison (2000: esp. pp. 323–338) and others. They show that a
neo-Newtonian cosmology is observationally equivalent to Friedman’s
cosmology on
a cosmological scale. Harrison further develops this neo-Newtonian
theory into a more comprehensive theory of gravity and shows it is
observationally equivalent to Einstein’s GTR at smaller scales
(Harrison, 2000: 334). But
these physicists discuss the neo-Newtonian theory merely as a
heuristic device for understanding Einstein’s GTR and do not discuss
the new relevance it has given that this Neo-Newtonian theory, but not
Einstein’s gravity
theory, is consistent with the non-local EPR correlations.
Furthermore, some of the problems with a more comprehensive neo-
Newtonian gravity theory, such as Harrison’s theory, can be resolved
if the neo-Newtonian
equations are modified to become neo-Lorentzian equations. Bohm’s 1952
interpretation of QM contains laws of motion that are part of the neo-
Lorentzian equations (the part that needs to be transformed by the
Lorentz
transformations). The mentioned parts of Bohm’s equations become
complete Lorentzian equations through undergoing a Lorentzian
transformation. Bohm’s 1952 ‘‘formally classical’’ was of
interpreting of QM (where the quantum force Q is an additional force
to the classical forces) either implies or is already unified or
consistent with Newton’s first two laws of motion and his universal
law of gravitation.
The phrase ‘‘quantum gravity’’ has been used to refer to a unification
of
Einstein’s GTR with QM. But that is not the meaning of this phrase, or
at least it should not have such a limited meaning. I take it to mean
a unification of a classical (non-quantum) theory of space, time,
gravity and the
universe with QM. QM has (supposedly) been unified with a classical
theory of space and time (Minkowski space-time) in quantum
electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. The classical (non-
quantum) theory is Minkowski’s theory of space and time. Minkowski
space-time is a flat spacetime. Recall that Lorentz’s theory has
traditionally been regarded as observationally equivalent to
Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) or its
space-time formulation in Minkowski (1908). If we substitute a flat
Euclidean space and an absolute time (required by Aspect’s
confirmation of Bell’s theorem) for Minkowski space-time, we have a
theory that is observationally equivalent to Minkowski QED and QCD and
also consistent with the absolute, instantaneous simultaneity that was
observationally confirmed by Aspect’s confirmation of Bell’s
theorems. This substitution makes all coordinate systems but one
effective (merely apparent).
The further unification of the ‘‘relativist effects’’ (described by
Lorentz transformation equations) with Newtonian mechanics and gravity
shows us
that a unification of the relativistic, Newtonian and ‘‘quantum
effects’’ are already built into Bohm’s equations of motion. The
classical potential V and quantum potential Q belong to the same
equation of motion for particles,
mdx/dt= - invrtriangle (V) - invrtriangle (Q), which provides a
‘‘built in’’ criterion for determining the strength of the quantum
potential Q. The Newtonian laws in Bohm’s equations of motion are
given a neo-Lorentzian formulation and these can provide classical
predictions of observational data. The measurement of the degree of
inaccuracy of the classical equations and the observational data is a
measurement of the strength of the quantum potential’s Q contribution
to the total causal force. However, some classical laws of motion are
not implicit in Bohm’s theory, such as the law for gravitational
acceleration, and these need to be built from the simpler laws that
are implisit in Bohm’s equations of motion. An example is a non-
gravitational equation for acceleration which I first formulate as a
kinematic equation and then as a dynamical equation, which includes
the mass and force. Bohm’s equations of motion, in their limit,
include the kinematics of Newton’s second law of motion, i.e. d(v)/dt.
A neo-Lorentzian formulation that modifies this Newtonian law of
acceleration A is:
Neo-Lorentz kinematic equation of acceleration
A = dv/dt
sqroot (1- v2=c2)
v is velocity, v = dx/dt, the rate of change of position x with time.
With Newton, we have d(v)/dt, but now we introduce into the kinematic
equation the acceleration dv/dt divided by a Lorentzian factor. A is
either the acceleration force or the acceleration field. But accurate
predictions require that this be formulated in an equation with Bohm’s
quantum potential Q which causally affects acceleration, as in the
double slit experiment. A more comprehensive, dynamic acceleration
equation will be given in Part Two. To differentiate between the
classical and quantum potentials, a sufficiently broad neo-Lorentzian
theory of motion, gravity and cosmology needs to be developed. -
Quintin Smith
mpc755
>
> <snip for readability>
>
Bell's Theorem does not apply to experiments based on downgraded
photon pairs, due to their not being local-hidden-variable theories.
In order for there to be conservation of momentum of the original
photon, the downgraded photon pair are created with exact opposite
polarizations. The 'high correlation' between the downgraded photons
attributed to 'entanglement' is nothing more than the downgraded
photon pair have exact opposite polarizations.
de Broglie-Bohm wave-mechanics is defined as a moving physical
particle has an associated physical wave and the particle occupies a
very small region of the wave. In the following article the moving
'particles' are the galaxy clusters and the associated wave is an
aether displacement wave.
The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether.
The 'particles' are the galaxy clusters.
The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave.
The 'ripple' is a gravitational wave.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and
enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether
displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether
displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is
this interference which alters the direction the particle travels.
Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle
and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no
interference.
There is an absolute space and an absolute time.
The absolute space is the state of the aether.
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced aether exerts force towards the matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists. The greater the force of the aether
exerted on and throughout an atomic clock the slower it ticks. The
faster an atomic clock moves with respect to the state of the aether
the greater the force of the aether exerted towards and throughout the
atomic clock the slower it ticks. The greater the force of the aether
associated with aether displaced by matter (i.e. gravitational force)
the slower an atomic clock ticks.
Omina
> On Jan 10, 7:32 pm, Omina <omni_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <snip for readability>
>
> Bell's Theorem does not apply to experiments based on downgraded
> photon pairs, due to their not being local-hidden-variable theories.
>
> In order for there to be conservation of momentum of the original
> photon, the downgraded photon pair are created with exact opposite
> polarizations. The 'high correlation' between the downgraded photons
> attributed to 'entanglement' is nothing more than the downgraded
> photon pair have exact opposite polarizations.
>
> de Broglie-Bohm wave-mechanics is defined as a moving physical
> particle has an associated physical wave and the particle occupies a
> very small region of the wave. In the following article the moving
> 'particles' are the galaxy clusters and the associated wave is an
> aether displacement wave.
>
> The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
> dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
> galaxy clusters displace aether.
>
Life is complicated. Physics is hundred times more complicated.
Physics is a multidisciplinary field in the current edge of science.
One must take into account all experiments, mathematical structure,
etc. to arrive at the truth. Simple mindedness is incompatible with
physics. You have such simple mindedness and unable to understand the
multidisciplinary structure and experiemental details and subtley of
say Bell's Theorem that I suggest you visit other hobbies like cookies
or fishing or sports like basketball as your mind is not up to the
task of understanding physics.. much less the Theory of Everything.
mpc755
Once again, in physics, if it is simple it must be wrong.
I understand Bell's Theorem does not apply to experiments involving
downgraded photon pairs.
If you can not understand the following is evidence of the de Broglie-
Bohm wave-mechanics physical particle having an associated physical
wave then I suggest it is you who should realize your will never
understand the physics of nature.
The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether.
The 'particles' are the galaxy clusters.
The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave.
The 'ripple' is a gravitational wave.
Understanding aether has mass and aether is displaced by matter is
easy.
Convincing those who insist on remaining ignorant of the correctness
of Aether Displacement is not so easy.
Omina
> easy.
>
> Convincing those who insist on remaining ignorant of the correctness
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everyday. Our earth passes thru dark matter in the solar system. If
dark matter is aether and light uses dark matter to move.. then we
should see so many distortions in the skylight yet it is uniform.
This is because dark matter is only alleged to feel the gravitational
force and work cosmic wide. It is not sensitive to electromagnetic
force or we should have observed many distortions. This is very
obvious and your posts are being ignored daily because it's very silly
and simpleton and wrong. Realise this and wake up we dont' have time
for stubborn clueless simpletons. Also the web site you shared has
correctly attribute the behavior thus:
" The collision between the two galaxy clusters, the astronomers
explained, created a ripple of dark matter that left distinct
footprints in the shapes of the background galaxies. It's like looking
at the pebbles on the bottom of a pond with ripples on the surface.
The pebbles' shapes appear to change as the ripples pass over them.
So, too, the background galaxies behind the ring show coherent changes
in their shapes due to the presence of the dense ring. Although the
invisible matter has been found before in other galaxy clusters,
astronomers say it has never been detected to be so largely separated
from the hot gas and the galaxies that make up galaxy clusters.
The astronomers found previous research that suggested the cluster had
collided with another cluster 1 to 2 billion years ago. They then
created computer simulations of galaxy cluster collisions. The
simulations show that when the two clusters smash together, the dark
matter falls to the center of the combined cluster and sloshes back
out. As the dark matter moves outward, it begins to slow down under
the pull of gravity and pile up, like cars bunched up on a freeway."
Surfer
Very well put.
mpc755
>
> Everyday. Our earth passes thru dark matter in the solar system.
Exactly. And what do you think happens to the dark matter the Earth
passes through? It is displaced by the Earth.
You mention Bohm in your title and throughout your post. I'm guessing
you agree with the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of what occurs
physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Two-slit_experiment
"In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both
slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes
through exactly one of the slits."
What do you think the 'wavefunction' physically exists as in nature?
What do you think is physically traveling through both slits?
Just as the Earth passes through dark matter and displaces dark
matter, so does the particle in a double slit experiment pass through
and displace dark matter.
A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave.
The 'wavefunction' which travels through both slits physically exists
in nature as a dark matter displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle passes through exactly one of
the slits. The associated dark matter displacement wave enters and
exits both slits. The dark matter displacement wave creates
interference upon exiting the slits. The particle interacts with this
interference and the direction it travels is altered. Detecting the
particle causes there to be a loss of coherence between the particle
and its associated dark matter displacement wave and there is no
interference.
Omina
> On Jan 10, 10:49 pm, Omina <omni_l...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Everyday. Our earth passes thru dark matter in the solar system.
>
> Exactly. And what do you think happens to the dark matter the Earth
> passes through? It is displaced by the Earth.
>
> You mention Bohm in your title and throughout your post. I'm guessing
> you agree with the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of what occurs
> physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
>
>
> "In de Broglie–Bohm theory, the wavefunction travels through both
> slits, but each particle has a well-defined trajectory and passes
> through exactly one of the slits."
>
> What do you think the 'wavefunction' physically exists as in nature?
> What do you think is physically traveling through both slits?
>
> Just as the Earth passes through dark matter and displaces dark
> matter, so does the particle in a double slit experiment pass through
> and displace dark matter.
>
> A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave.
>
> The 'wavefunction' which travels through both slits physically exists
> in nature as a dark matter displacement wave.
>
> In a double slit experiment the particle passes through exactly one of
> the slits. The associated dark matter displacement wave enters and
> exits both slits. The dark matter displacement wave creates
> interference upon exiting the slits. The particle interacts with this
> interference and the direction it travels is altered. Detecting the
> particle causes there to be a loss of coherence between the particle
> and its associated dark matter displacement wave and there is no
> interference.
The particle and your dark matter displacement wave has very very weak
(if none) coupling. So the displacement wave shouldn't affect the
particle and guide its trajectory.
If their coupling is very strong. Then we should detect them already.
Remember in particle detectors ATLAS in the Large Hadron Collider,
physicists can take into account every single iota of momentum. They
(and all experiments down the decades) didn't detect anything unusual.
So the coupling between particle and dark matter is almost non-
existence. Hence your displacement wave shouldn't affect the particle
in any way.
Reality is a million times more complicated. Try to get into a tour in
the Large Hadron Collider and get awaken.
mpc755
We have detected the coupling in the ripple created in the galaxy
cluster collision.
This is the same physical phenomenon which occurs in a double slit
experiment.
> Remember in particle detectors ATLAS in the Large Hadron Collider,
> physicists can take into account every single iota of momentum. They
> (and all experiments down the decades) didn't detect anything unusual.
> So the coupling between particle and dark matter is almost non-
> existence. Hence your displacement wave shouldn't affect the particle
> in any way.
>
Remember, if the particle enters and exits a single slit as it does in
de Broglie-Bohm wave-mechanics then something must physically exit the
other slit in order for there to be interference.
What exits both slits is the associated dark matter displacement wave.
Or is this where you simply choose to believe in magic?
> Reality is a million times more complicated. Try to get into a tour in
> the Large Hadron Collider and get awaken.
Reality is understanding what is postulated as dark matter is aether.
Reality is understanding aether has mass. Reality is understanding, as
far as we know, there is no space nor any part of space, devoid of
mass.
Reality is understanding a moving particle has an associated aether
displacement wave.
Reality is understanding force exerted towards matter by aether
displaced by matter is gravity.
Understanding the physics of nature in terms of aether having mass and
aether being displaced by matter is simple. You are making it more
complicated than necessary.
Try to get a conceptual understanding of what occurs physically in
nature.
Omina
It's not exactly coupling but more of momentum effect that occurs
galactic wide scale.
> This is the same physical phenomenon which occurs in a double slit
> experiment.
You need an earth size combination of dark matter to even nodge a
particle off 0.001 degree.
>
> > Remember in particle detectors ATLAS in the Large Hadron Collider,
> > physicists can take into account every single iota of momentum. They
> > (and all experiments down the decades) didn't detect anything unusual.
> > So the coupling between particle and dark matter is almost non-
> > existence. Hence your displacement wave shouldn't affect the particle
> > in any way.
>
> Remember, if the particle enters and exits a single slit as it does in
> de Broglie-Bohm wave-mechanics then something must physically exit the
> other slit in order for there to be interference.
In Bohm mechanics. Nothing enters the slits. The wave function is
aware of all configurations of all particles in the entire universe.
It is omniscient. The wave function then controls the particle by some
kind of propulsion changing its direction. Your particle and
displacement wave is not enough to couple to each other to manuever
it.
But of course you will still insist it does. No it doesn't.
>
> What exits both slits is the associated dark matter displacement wave.
>
> Or is this where you simply choose to believe in magic?
>
> > Reality is a million times more complicated. Try to get into a tour in
> > the Large Hadron Collider and get awaken.
>
> Reality is understanding what is postulated as dark matter is aether.
> Reality is understanding aether has mass. Reality is understanding, as
> far as we know, there is no space nor any part of space, devoid of
> mass.
>
> Reality is understanding a moving particle has an associated aether
> displacement wave.
>
> Reality is understanding force exerted towards matter by aether
> displaced by matter is gravity.
>
> Understanding the physics of nature in terms of aether having mass and
> aether being displaced by matter is simple. You are making it more
> complicated than necessary.
>
> Try to get a conceptual understanding of what occurs physically in
> nature.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your model doesn't work as I explained above. Read up on at least 1
dozen physics books and you may begin to see the light of day.
mpc755
Now, not only do we have nothing entering the slits, we have a wave
function, a mathematical construct, achieving awareness. And not just
awareness of its local surrounding; awareness of all particles in the
entire universe.
All this in order to remain ignorant to understanding a moving
particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave.
>
> It is omniscient.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omniscient
1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or
understanding; perceiving all things.
2. an omniscient being.
3. the Omniscient, God.
> The wave function then controls the particle by some
> kind of propulsion changing its direction.
What kind of propulsion?
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory -
Louis de BROGLIE'
http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the
wave, the guidance formula. It may easily be generalized to the case
of an external field acting on the particle."
The 'external field' acting on the particle is the associated dark
matter displacement wave.
Your model is complete nonsense.
Your model completely falls apart when you state:
"The wave function then controls the particle by some kind of
propulsion changing its direction."
A wave function is a mathematical construct and does not exist
physically in nature. If you can not describe what occurs physically
in nature to cause the particle's change in direction then you are
just making stuff up.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound once you state, "some
kind of propulsion". You have emphatically stated you have no clue.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
All this nonsense you post because you are unable or unwilling to
understand what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether;
aether has mass; and aether is displaced by matter.
Omina
That's true in Bohmian Mechanics where the omnicient wave function
controls a omnipresent force called quantum potential that somehow
influence the particle to change direction. Since the space between a
particle and the planck scale is like the distance between earth-sun
to a house, then many hidden mechanism could be lurking inside like
some propulsion system where vacuum based jet could exist controlled
by the quantum potential. Of course I didn't say I believe in Bohmian
Mechanics. I just read about it.
> A wave function is a mathematical construct and does not exist
> physically in nature. If you can not describe what occurs physically
> in nature to cause the particle's change in direction then you are
> just making stuff up.
But in Bohmian Mechanics. A wave function is a real entity compared to
Copenhagen where the wave function is just purely mathematical tool.
>
> Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound once you state, "some
> kind of propulsion". You have emphatically stated you have no clue.
>
> A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>
> All this nonsense you post because you are unable or unwilling to
> understand what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether;
> aether has mass; and aether is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text -
This is incorrect. This is grade school wrong concept that even
children later outgrow.
Come on. Just study physics first. I don't have time for this as I
have to focus studying quantum gravity to find a way to improve on
General Relativity to make it compatible with QM.. if at all possible.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
mpc755
A wave function is never a real entity. A wave function is always a
mathematical construct. What the wave-function refers to in de Broglie
wave mechanics is the external field acting on the particle. The
external field is the associated PHYSICAL aether displacement wave.
>
>
> > Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound once you state, "some
> > kind of propulsion". You have emphatically stated you have no clue.
>
> > A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
>
> > All this nonsense you post because you are unable or unwilling to
> > understand what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether;
> > aether has mass; and aether is displaced by matter.- Hide quoted text -
>
> This is incorrect. This is grade school wrong concept that even
> children later outgrow.
>
> Come on. Just study physics first. I don't have time for this as I
> have to focus studying quantum gravity to find a way to improve on
> General Relativity to make it compatible with QM.. if at all possible.
>
Maxwell's displacement current is a displacement of the aether.
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Aether Displacement combines Einstein's SR and GR, de Broglie wave-
mechanics, and Maxwell's displacement current into a single theory.
hanson
love affair has come to a bitter end. What a shame!
... ahahahaha... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
7x "Omina" <omni...@hotmail.com> wrote:
6x Mental Patient Case# 755 "mpc755" aka
Michael P. Cavedon <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Omina wrote:
Mikey, Your model doesn't work as I explained above.
may begin to see the light of day.
>
Omnina, Your model is complete nonsense.
>
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...You guys ought to
team up instead of cursing each other's view.
Do like Alpher, Bethe & Gamov did when they sold
and promoted their Big Bang theory using:
"and God said: ***Let there be Light***. Details here:
<http://tinyurl.com/Big-Bang-is-Let-there-be-Light>
Remember the gig: "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"?
Sell your fixation under ***Aether is the Holy Ghost***
in the same way the above 3 sharpies did.
I told that to Cavy before in
<http://tinyurl.com/Holy-Ghost-theres-Aether>,
but Cavy is a bit slow on the uptake.
Thanks for the laughs, though, guys... ahahahahanson
mpc755
>
> hanson wrote:
>
> ... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...You guys ought to
> team up instead of cursing each other's view.
That is what I am doing by explaining the following.
Maxwell's displacement current is a displacement of the aether.
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Aether Displacement combines Einstein's SR and GR, de Broglie wave-
mechanics, and Maxwell's displacement current into a single theory.
You are also welcome to team up and help out with Aether Displacement.
All that is required is understanding dark matter is aether, aether
has mass, and aether is displaced by matter.
Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date.
hanson
>
hanson wrote:
... Awwwwhhh... I'm so sorry to see that the aetherial
love affair between Cavy and Omina has come to a
bitter end. What a shame! ... ahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
Omina wrote:
Mikey, Your model doesn't work as I explained above.
Read up on at least 1 dozen physics books and you
may begin to see the light of day.
>
Mental patient Cavedon got mad and wrote:
Omnina, Your model is complete nonsense.
>
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...You guys ought to
team up instead of cursing each other's view.
Cavy being slow on the uptake, again, wrote:
That is what I am doing by explaining the following
< which is total crap, and hence is snipped>.
>
hanson wrote:
No, Cavy, that's NOT what you are doing!... ahaha...
>
Do like Alpher, Bethe & Gamov did when they sold
and promoted their Big Bang theory using:
"and God said: ***Let there be Light***." Details here:
<http://tinyurl.com/Big-Bang-is-Let-there-be-Light>
Remember the gig: "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"?
Sell your fixation under ***Aether is the Holy Ghost***
in the same way the above 3 sharpies, A, B & G did.
mpc755
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Aether Displacement combines Einstein's SR and GR, de Broglie wave-
mechanics, and Maxwell's displacement current into a single theory.
You are also welcome to team up and help out with Aether Displacement.
All that is required is understanding dark matter is aether, aether
has mass, and aether is displaced by matter.
Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date.
The following is evidence of the associated de Broglie wave-mechanics
physical wave.
The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
hanson
>
hanson wrote:
... Awwwwhhh... I'm so sorry to see that the aetherial
bitter end. What a shame! ... ahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
Omina wrote:
Mikey, Your model doesn't work as I explained above.
Read up on at least 1 dozen physics books and you
may begin to see the light of day.
>
Mental patient Cavedon got mad and wrote:
Omnina, Your model is complete nonsense.
>
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...You guys ought to
team up instead of cursing each other's view.
>
Aether Displacement is the most correct unified
stinks and to boot Cavy doesn't have any theory.>
>
hanson wrote:
No, Cavy, that's NOT what you are doing! nor are
you explaining anything. You only cutNpaste... ahaha...
>
Do like Alpher, Bethe & Gamov did when they sold
and promoted their Big Bang theory using:
"and God said: ***Let there be Light***." Details here:
<http://tinyurl.com/Big-Bang-is-Let-there-be-Light>
Remember the gig: "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"?
Sell your fixation under ***Aether is the Holy Ghost***
mpc755
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of
the aether in which it exists.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Aether Displacement combines Einstein's SR and GR, de Broglie wave-
mechanics, and Maxwell's displacement current into a single theory.
All that is required is understanding dark matter is aether, aether
has mass, and aether is displaced by matter; which is supported by the
physical evidence.
The following is evidence of the associated de Broglie wave-mechanics
physical wave. It is also evidence of Einstein's gravitational wave.
The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
cjcountess
I applaud your effort, but the deed is done, quantum gravity in its
simplest form was right under our noses all the time. All it takes is
to view the most famous equation in the world, (E=mc^2),
geometrically.
You Say
“A Bohm-Lorentz QG consists of ideas and equations scattered
throughout
the physics literature and which have not been conjoined and
organized
and presented as a theory. An introductory outline of how these ideas
can
be unified is the project of this paper. A central claim is that a
neo-
Lorentzian GTR can incorporate the results of the neo-Newtonian
cosmology and gravity theory presented by McCrea and Milne (1934) and
developed
by Bondi (1960), North (1965), Sciama (1971) Peebles (1993, esp. p.
48), Harrison (2000: esp. pp. 323–338) and others. They show that a
neo-Newtonian cosmology is observationally equivalent to Friedman’s
cosmology on
a cosmological scale. Harrison further develops this neo-Newtonian
theory into a more comprehensive theory of gravity and shows it is
observationally equivalent to Einstein’s GTR at smaller scales
(Harrison, 2000: 334).”
What a lot of work, but as you also said:
“Reality is a million times more complicated. Try to get into a tour
in
the Large Hadron Collider and get awaken.”
But I say:
Not necessarily true, sometimes the truth is in the simplest answer.
Take for instance your suggestion
“The phrase ‘‘quantum gravity’’ has been used to refer to a
unification
of
Einstein’s GTR with QM. But that is not the meaning of this phrase,
or
at least it should not have such a limited meaning. I take it to mean
a unification of a classical (non-quantum) theory of space, time,
gravity and the
universe with QM.
I in agreement with this do take Einstein’s SR equation E=mc^2
interpret it geometrically as E=mc^2=E=mc^circled and or sphered which
shows that the Lorentz contraction of EM wave turn to space-time
curvature of EM wave as standing spherical waves and or binding
energies at a frequency wavelength of c^2 which is not just a
dimensionless conversion factor but an actual conversion frequency
where energy turns to matter because it takes on a circular and or
spherical rotation which gives it rest mass. In other words , c^2 is
1) c in linear direction
2) x c in 90 degree angular direction
3) = c^2 = c in circular and or spherical rotation as a balance of
centrifugal and centripetal forces = cx2pi with angular momentum of h/
2pi for circle and h/2pi/2 for wave making 2 rotations at right angles
(spin1/2), creating a standing spherical wave.
From the geometrical perspective one can see that E=mc^2 = F=mv^2
“Newton’s gravity formula”, on quantum level as well as “h/2pi and or
h/2pi/2”. This unifies SR GR, or at least one of the classical gravity
theories, and QM, for quantum gravity in the simplest form.
You also stated
“QM has (supposedly) been unified with a classical
theory of space and time (Minkowski space-time) in quantum
electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. The classical (non-
quantum) theory is Minkowski’s theory of space and time. Minkowski
space-time is a flat spacetime. Recall that Lorentz’s theory has
traditionally been regarded as observationally equivalent to
Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) or its
space-time formulation in Minkowski (1908). If we substitute a flat”
(The Geomerical interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or
sphered,) also incorporates aspects on Einstein Minkowski idea of
(cti) as quantification of space-time
http://www.wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf
Conrad J Countess
You say:
Reality is a million times more complicated. Try to get into a tour
in
the Large Hadron Collider and get awaken.
And I say:
Not necessarily true, sometimes the truth is in the simplest answer.
(The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or
sphered) , is simplest explanation to Quantum Gravity.
And together with the (Geometrical interpretation of c=sqrt-1), it
agrees with Einstein and Minkowski’s (cti).
But again I say, Good Effort
mpc755
I realize we have been over this before and you are not going to
change your mind; however, I will take this opportunity to correct the
following statement of yours:
"energy turns to matter"
Matter physically occupies three dimensional space as a material.
Energy does not physically occupy three dimensional space as a
material.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space as a material.
Matter is condensations of aether.
shuba
> (The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or
> sphered), is simplest explanation to Quantum Gravity. And together with
> the (Geometrical interpretation of c=sqrt-1), it agrees with Einstein
> and Minkowski’s (cti).
This bizarre crackpottery has no bearing on quantum gravity, nor any
other part of physics. Whatever might be said of the polemics of the
original poster, Omina seems to be trying to approach the subject in a
spirit of intellectual curiousity and science, rather than the obvious
and sterile kookery of a "Countess" or "mpc".
---Tim Shuba---
mpc755
Explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity.
Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
Explain the relationship between mass and energy.
What's that? You can't?
What is it which causes you to be unable or unwilling to understand
dark matter is aether?
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Displaced aether is not at rest.
Displaced aether exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not
vanished. It still exists, as aether. As matter converts to aether it
expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this
transition has on the neighboring matter and aether is energy. Mass is
conserved. Energy is conserved.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether. The moving galaxy clusters have
associated aether displacement waves.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether.
The 'particles' are the galaxy clusters.
The 'ripple' is an aether displacement.
'Dark Halo Around Our Galaxy Looks Like Squished Beach Ball'
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/100106-dark-matter-halo-milky-way.html
"Dark matter seems to shroud the remaining visible matter in giant
spheres called haloes."
The Milky Way's halo is displaced aether.
"But the new study found that the Milky Way's halo isn't exactly
spherical, but squished. In fact, its beach-ball form is flattened in
a surprising direction — perpendicular to the galaxy's visible,
pancake-shaped spiral disk."
All of the aether displaced by the matter exerts force towards the
matter. The force exerted towards the matter by the aether displaced
perpendicular to the galaxy's pancake-shaped spiral disk offsets. It
is the aether which is displaced outward relative to the plane of the
spiral disk which exerts force towards the center of the galaxy. This
forces the matter in the pancake-shaped spiral disk towards the center
of the galaxy which results in the displaced aether looking like a
squished beach ball.
cjcountess
What you say is illogical. How can something that does not occupy 3d
space, move something in 3d space?
Photons as EM energy, occupy 3d space, and so do electrons, which are
considered matter, because they have rest, but are also considered
electrical energy carriers.
In your opinion, does (E=mc^2), does energy = matter “rest mass”
through conversion factor c^2 or not?
I say yes and explain how through my equation. Do the same if you can.
You don’t even need equations, just make logical sense, please.
As far as the aether is concerned, you can reffer to it as filling all
space, just as you can consider it a ground state EM field, or a Higgs
field without the particles. It doesnt matter to me as I too know
that space is the basic form of energy, which conprises matter, and
the name you give it is of minimum importance
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
> mpc755
> What you say is illogical. How can something that does not occupy 3d
> space, move something in 3d space?
Energy does not physically occupy 3d space. Aether has mass and
occupies 3d space.
> Photons as EM energy, occupy 3d space, and so do electrons, which are
> considered matter, because they have rest, but are also considered
> electrical energy carriers.
> In your opinion, does (E=mc^2), does energy = matter “rest mass”
> through conversion factor c^2 or not?
E=mc^2 is a mathematical equation defining the relationship between
energy and mass. Not that energy is mass. Another way to look at the
equation is:
A=Mc^2, where A is aether and M is matter.
> I say yes and explain how through my equation. Do the same if you can.
> You don’t even need equations, just make logical sense, please.
Where are you are incorrect is when you state energy is the same thing
as matter.
Aether has mass. Matter has mass.
As far as we know there is no space nor any part of 3d space devoid of
mass.
Energy is a change in state of that which has mass.
> As far as the aether is concerned, you can reffer to it as filling all
> space, just as you can consider it a ground state EM field, or a Higgs
> field without the particles. It doesnt matter to me as I too know
> that space is the basic form of energy, which conprises matter, and
> the name you give it is of minimum importance
> Conrad J Countess
The difference in the labels: aether, energy, matter, and mass are
important. They form the foundation of our understanding of the
physics of nature.
If you insist energy IS mass then you will never have an accurate
understanding of the physics of nature.
Think of the universe as being completely filled with aether and
matter. A change in state of the aether or the matter is energy.
Let's discuss a photon as being a wave which propagates through the
aether. The wave is an aether displacement wave. The 'waving' is the
energy associated with the photon. The 'waving' itself is not mass. It
is the mass associated with the aether which is 'waving'. The change
in state of the aether as it waves is energy.
Energy is not mass. Energy does not HAVE mass. A physical change in
state of that which has mass IS energy.
cjcountess
(S=mc^2), with "S", meaning space, which I consider to have ground
state energy of (c=h).
But now you are unknowingly agreeing with me because if (A=mc^2) and
(E=mc^2) than (A=E), and they both must occupy 3d space.
After looking at the rest of what you said I do believe that you
painted yourself into a corner of which you are afraid to step out of
for fear of messing up the floor, “foundation of your theory”. Step
out; you can always redo it because it needs to be redone, it is
wrong.
Aether, Higgs field without Higgs particle, Ground state EM field,
They all will work as a foundation for my work where their
descriptions overlap. They permeate all of space and create drag which
generates mass. And arguments over their difference seem to me,
trivial.
Anyway as I said, if (A=mc^2) and (E=mc^2) than (A=E).
But I am glad there are these marked differences in our theories. This
sets mine apart still as the only one to not only show agreement with
the most famous equation in the world (E=mc^2) by the most famous
scientist, “Einstein”, but to add to it by giving it geometrical
dimensions which contains more info than equation alone as a picture
is worth a thousand words and equations. I am proud to put my name on
it.
Conrad J Countess
spudnik
here is a nice rendition of "Cosmic ABC Humbuggery,"
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/fall01/fermat/Fermat.html
we're due for another cycle of glaciation,
which can onset with great rapidity.
can anyone provide a discussion of the calculation
of drag or power from wind, with change of windspeed?
of course, it makes a difference,
whether the bulbs are high-voltage sodium-vapor, or
low.
so, biofuel-production produces dioxins?... of course,
this is the whole idea, that environmental impact reports should deal
with the intermediary results of any experiment;
not that it should be forbidden at the get-go.
after all, my Cogressman's derivatives scheme
-- not to say his portfolio; probably hasn't invested
in such crazy hedgie-nut stuff, himself --
depends upon the mandatorizing of the huge,
USA voluntary cap&trade so-called carbon tax,
which it is probably not.
so, what is the difference between biodieselTM and "regular?"
--sell every thing to the highest bidder, cause
it's a Free Market, Free Beer, Free Trade, Freedom!
http://tarpley.net
mpc755
You are sitting in a chair. You raise your hands over your head. The
act of raising your hands over your head is energy. The act of raising
your hands over your head is not mass. The movement of your hands is
energy. The movement itself is not mass. Your hands and your arms have
mass. The change in state of your hands and arms is energy.
As long as you mistake A=E for 'energy is aether' then you will never
understand the physics of nature.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow mpc755
You take something that makes absolutely no sense and make it sound as
if it does.
What a skill or blind confidence. You are fooling yourself, it is you
who dont understand.
spudnik
That was interesting, I did not know that those guys who came up with
such revolutionary theorys were self taught.
I am in good company, and will chalenge anyone in the accedemic
comuunity concerning (The Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2) and
(c=sqrt-1), as well as the other discoveries I am on a roll.
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
You push over the chair next to you. You physically pushing the chair
is energy. 'Pushing' is energy. 'Pushing' is not mass.
You are saying goodbye to someone and wave. Waving is energy. Waving
is not mass.
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
You do understand that the very act of moving, whether to push, wave,
or whatever, generates “kinetic energy/relative mass”, = (F=mv^2) or
(F=1/2mv^2) depending on weather you include “action/reaction”
principle, don’t you? If so, then kinetic energy has relative mass.
Rest mass itself is only relative mass in rotation, And this happens
at frequency wavelength oc (c^2). This is where (E=hf=mc^2) as
deBroglie stated for the standing spherical waves, which are the
electrons, which is electromagnetic energy, just like photos, but in
standing spherical wave rotation.
Do you consider photons electromagnetic energy?
Because they display kinetic energy/relative mass in direction of
motion of (E=hf/c^2) in photo - electric effect.
Can you answer that question, because you seem like an intelligent
person and I don’t understand where the logical disconnect is.
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
The logic disconnect is in your inability to understand 'waving' is
not mass. Waving is energy. That which waves has mass.
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
You still did not answer the question, are photons electromagnetic
energy?
Because photons have kinetic energy of (E=hf/c^2) = relative mass =
(M=hf//c^2) as they are equivalent.
Are you afraid to answer question? Are photons electromagnetic energy?
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
Photons propagate as either particles which have associated external
aether displacement waves or photons are 'particles' which consist of
a very small region of the wave itself.
My guess is photons are detected as quanta of aether. The detection of
a quantum of aether is energy. The quantum of aether has mass.
Detection is energy. The act of detection is not mass. That which has
mass is detected.
You still did not answer the question. Is 'waving' mass?
Are you afraid to answer the question? Is 'waving' mass?
That which has mass waves. 'Waving' is not mass.
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are playing word games to avoid the fact that you are wrong.
Sure waving is mass. Any movement requirs the exertion of enrgy and
energy
= mass, so yes, waving is an exprression of mass.
Stop playing word games.
You are only fooling yourself
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
So, this is your logical argument.
Energy = Mass.
Mass = Energy.
Therefore, whatever you say I can simply point to the two MATHEMATICAL
EQUATIONS above in order to completely misunderstand the physics of
nature.
The physical ACT of waving is not mass.
That which HAS mass waves.
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you don't believe me try getting in front of a fast waving fist as
opposed to a still fist and feel the mass.
I garrenty you that the faster it waves, the more the mass. Any
motion, even waving generates mass, and the faster the motion, the
more the mass.
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
Yes, I will feel the mass of the fist. The waving of the fist is
energy.
> I garrenty you that the faster it waves, the more the mass.
Yes, the faster it waves the greater the relativistic mass. Still, the
waving is not mass. The waving is energy. The fist has mass. The
waving fist is energy.
> Any
> motion, even waving generates mass, and the faster the motion, the
> more the mass.
>
> Conrad J Countess
The faster the motion the greater the relativistic mass, correct.
Still, motion is not mass. Motion is energy. Mass which is in motion
is energy.
Aether has mass. Let's assume all there is in the universe is aether
and it is at rest. If the aether, which has mass, is at rest and there
was nothing to act against it it would still have mass but it would
not have energy. The aether would still occupy three dimensional
space. However, if its state had never and would never change it would
not have energy.
cjcountess
Physical objects are composed of energy in rotation binding ernergy
and standing spherical waves compounded into circles of energy binding
spheres of energy to build up the elementary pArticles atoms molecules
compounds and so on up to even ourselvs. Take that compound composite
of rotating energy, which appears at rest and solid to us and apply
more motion to it. It still adds up to energy in motion = mass.
No way around it.
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
All which exists, and all which will ever exists, is the Universal
space filling mass associated with the aether. There has never been
and will never be, anything to act upon the aether. The state of the
aether has never and will never change. The aether is void of energy.
Still, the aether has mass.
cjcountess
Oh now I see, you are basing this on assuption that something can be
still.
But that is an illusion. Nothing in the universe can be still
absolutely.
Therein lies your falicy.
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
I understand nothing can be still. I was attempting to use a
hypothetical to help you understand the difference between mass and
energy.
Mass physically occupies three dimensional space.
A change in state of that which physically occupies three dimensional
space is energy.
cjcountess
The Aether is not void of energy. If matter is a condensation of
Aether, then it must condense through motion, which means that the
Aether moves from a dispersed state of expansion, to a condensed state
as contraction. And sense the universe is all there is, was, and ever
will be, and sense it is in motion now, it must have and must will be
always in motion, no begining and no end.
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
I agree. Motion is energy. In order for there to be motion requires
mass.
The motion of the mass is energy.
Aether moving from a dispersed state of expansion, to a condensed
state as contraction, is energy. The motion of the mass of the aether
from a dispersed state of expansion, to a condensed state as
contraction, is energy.
The change in state of the aether is energy.
The change is state of mass is energy.
Mass itself is NOT energy.
It is the change in state of that which has mass which is energy.
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -
Best to think mass is frozen energy. Pressure and heat can defrost
this energy,and thus you have fusion in a stars core. Trebert
mpc755
>
> Best to think mass is frozen energy. Pressure and heat can defrost
> this energy,and thus you have fusion in a stars core. Trebert
Best to understand dark matter is aether.
Best to understand aether has mass.
Best to understand aether is displaced by matter.
Best to understand gravity is force exerted towards matter by aether
displaced by matter.
Best to understand a moving particle has an associated aether
displacement wave.
Best to understand aether and matter are different states of the same
material.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Best to understand matter is condensations of aether.
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether. As matter converts to aether it expands in three
dimensional space. The physical effects this transition has on the
neighboring aether and matter is energy. Mass is conserved. Energy is
conserved.
Best to understand a change in state of that which has mass is energy.
spudnik
to change too much. there are no photons!
anyay, the only real difference between biodieselTM
and "regular," is that the biodiesel will have a bouquet
of just certain plants.
Why Green plants hate solar cells
Figure 2.
Solar panels typically absorb about 20 percent of incident sunlight
for conversion to electricity. They contribute nothing to moisture
recycling, and obtain no benefit from precipitation. In fact, they are
most effective with absolutely no clouds in the sky.
Whereas the biogenic migration of atoms is accelerated through the
various biogeochemical cycles intersecting at photosynthesis, it is
disrupted by the presence of solar panels. Further, unlike plants,
solar cells produce, but do not consume, heat in their operation. That
is, much of the sunlight that hits a solar cell is either reflected or
absorbed as heat, without inducing an electrical current. This heat,
as well as that produced in the movement of electricity through
conducting wires, constitutes waste heat. In fact, solar cells work
best at the frigid temperatures found in the vacuum of space.
Then there’s the problem of dust; it is estimated that less than a
tablespoon of dust per square meter can reduce the efficiency of a
typical solar panel by 40 percent. This is roughly the amount
deposited in one week in the desert. Dust, which is a major worldwide
export of deserts like the Sahara, also represents a major ecological
threat, as well as a serious human health hazard from—among other
things—infectious diseases that can be carried with it when blown
across the ocean.
But solar panels themselves also pose a direct threat to the survival
of living organisms. Certain species of aquatic insects, which lay
their eggs in water, are attracted to the polarized light reflected by
solar panels, mistaking it for the reflection from water.
--sell every thing to the highests bidder,
such as carbon-credit hedge-fundamentalism, because
it's the Free Market, the Free Beer, the Free Trade
and freedom!... http://tarpley.net
cjcountess
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
Your evidence supports my claim, not your own. You are misinterpreting
it .
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
Because matter is condensed energy!!!
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
Because matter is condensed energy!!!
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a
special form of energy.“
Also from your refference: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"
Because matter is condensed energy!!!
DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
Because matter is condensed energy!!!
Because matter is condensed energy!!!
Your evidence supports my claim, not your own. You are misinterpreting
it .
There is no way around it
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
> "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
> of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
> of the electromagnetic field"
>
> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
> Your evidence supports my claim, not your own. You are misinterpreting
> it .
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
> "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
> of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
> of the electromagnetic field"
>
> Because matter is condensed energy!!!
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
>
> Because matter is condensed energy!!!
>
> Conrad J Countess
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter is condensations of aether.
The ACT of condensing is energy.
mpc755
The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
Matter condenses into aether.
The ACT of condensing is energy.
When the mass of a body diminishes, matter converts to aether.
The ACT of matter converting to aether is energy.
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
Umm, let me see, should I go with your or Einsteins description?
I think I will go with Einstein's whose statements obviously equate
energy with matter.
But you are half right, because "Aether", is also energy with mass = c
= h, and as such is bases for all material motion, mass, as
foundational constants in equations E=hf/c^2 for photons with
constant mass/energy of "h", reguardless of frequency and constant
speed "c" in linear direction, reguardess of frequency,analogous to
F=Mm/r^2 as if h=c is constant mass/energy around which m orbits as a
division of radious ^2 = c ^2 which at c in circular and or spherical
rotation = rest mass = mc^2. And when E=hf=mc^2 is reached in
frequency r^2 = c^2 = rest mass is attained.
This is also analogous to the spring equation also U=1/2kx^2 or U=kx^2
simular to F=mv^2 and E=1/2mv^2 depending on weather you include
action/reation in formular.
In this case, the spring constant "k" is analogous to constants "c =
h", as equalibrium states from which waves are displaced and "f",
analogous to "x" as amount of displacement in equation E=hf/c^2 which
could very well be E=M/c^2
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
by L/c2 . The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes
energy of
radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the
more general
conclusion that
The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy
changes
by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 1020 , the energy
being
measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes."
Energy is measure in ergs and mass in grammes because they do not
exist as the same entity in nature.
Energy is an ACTION.
Mass is a MATERIAL.
An ACTION associated with a MATERIAL is energy.
cjcountess
E=mc^2 gets down to the interrelationship of the two, where they
define each other, through conversion factor “c^2”.
Ergs and grams are measurements of the macro level, where the
interrelationship is not seen. Only latter with the advent of E=mc^2,
do the physicist realize this and convert ergs to mass through there
dimensional analysis and c^2.
This is the missing piece in your logic.
Conrad J Countess
On the quantum level, matter is also action, energy in circular and or
spherical motion, with angular momentum (h/2pi), and (h/2pi/2), "h",
is an action measurement, as well as a mass measurement.
mpc755
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2 . The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body
becomes energy of
radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the
more general conclusion that The mass of a body is a measure of its
energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the
same sense by L/9 × 1020 , the energy being measured in ergs, and the
mass in grammes."
You do understand L/c2 is just E=mc^2 in a different form don't you?
So, E=mc^2 did not occur later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erg
"An erg is the unit of energy and mechanical work in the centimetre-
gram-second (CGS) system of units, symbol "erg". Its name is derived
from the Greek ergon, meaning "work"."
It doesn't say an erg is a gram. It says an erg is a centimetre-gram-
second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram
"The gram (also gramme in British English),[1] (Greek/Latin root
grámma); symbol g, is a unit of mass."
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
cjcountess
You've painted yourself into a cornner. I don't even have to present
any more argument or evidence, because you did it for me.
The parragraph from Einstein's paper, says that energy and matter are
the same thing in different forms.
And yes, I know that L/c^2 is E/c^2 and E=mc^2 is derived from it.
Energy and matter are converted through conversion factor c^2 on
quantum level, and from there, ergs and grams can also be converted
into eachother.
Havent you heard of the mass - energy conversions of atomic and
nuclear physics?
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
If mass and energy were identical they would not require different
forms of measurements.
"the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erg
"An erg is the unit of energy and mechanical work in the centimetre-
gram-second (CGS) system of units, symbol "erg". Its name is derived
from the Greek ergon, meaning "work"."
It doesn't say an erg is a gram. It says an erg is a centimetre-gram-
second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram
"The gram (also gramme in British English),[1] (Greek/Latin root
grámma); symbol g, is a unit of mass."
I don't understand why you are unable or unwilling to understand the
following correct explanation of the relationship between mass and
energy.
cjcountess
simple E or energy = m or mas through conversion factor c^2. It's that
simple.
Everything you posted from Einstein's article supports this.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
Ergs and grams are aritrary man made measurements concerning the macro
level of existence, where the interelationship between energy and
matter is not obviouse or even important.
These unites were concieved before it was even know that E=mc^2, and
are good for practical applications on macro level. But don't let them
hide the underlying interelationship between energy and matter
revealed by E=mc^2. You do yourself and your followers a disservice if
you do.
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
Einstein was able to understand energy and mass require different
measurements because they are not the same entity.
cjcountess
as to drown out others. I've noticed that throughout wherever you
post.
You are wrong but refuse to admit it..
I am tempted to rest my case, but maybe I will play these word games
with you some more, because that is all they are at this point "word
games"
1) c in linear direction
2) x c in 90 degree angular direction
3) = c^2 = c in circular and or spherical rotation as a balance
of
centrifugal and centripetal forces = cx2pi with angular momentum of
h/
2pi for circle and h/2pi/2 for wave making 2 rotations at right
angles
(spin1/2), creating a standing spherical wave.
From the geometrical perspective one can see that E=mc^2 = F=mv^2
“Newton’s gravity formula”, on quantum level as well as “h/2pi and or
h/2pi/2”. This unifies SR GR, or at least Newton's classical gravity
theories, and QM, for quantum gravity in the simplest form.
http://www.wbabin.net/science/countess.pdf
The evidence speaks for itself
.
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
The following quote from Einstein speaks for itself:
"the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes."
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
cjcountess
diminishes by L/c2 . The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body
becomes energy of
radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the
more general conclusion that The mass of a body is a measure of its
What about that part?
(E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or sphered), as geometry of how energy =
and turns to matter at frequency wavelength of "c^2", by acquiring
circular and or spherical rotation.
I solved the quantum gravity problem by interpreting the most famous
equation in the world, (E=mc^2), by most famous scientist,
“Einstein”, geometrically.
This not only agrees with Einstein’s version that a lot of energy is
trapped inside of matter and that matter and energy are equal and
convertible through "c^2", but actually shows how.
This adds new dimensions to that most famous equation, geometrical
dimensions, and as a picture is worth a thousand words, so is this
worth a thousand words and equations and contains much more info than
Einstein’s equation alone.
Man, don’t you know that this is one of the greatest discoveries since
(E=mc^2)?
You are witnessing history, and might just become famous for not
recognizing it.
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
If you could only understand the relationship between energy and mass
then you might actually be on to something.
When the mass of the body diminishes the matter which no longer exists
as part of the body has not vanished; the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not 'evaporated' into energy. The
matter which no longer exists as part of the body has 'evaporated'
into aether. As matter 'evaporates' into aether it expands in three
dimensional space.
The physical effect the expansion has on the neighboring matter and
aether is energy.
Energy is a physical effect.
Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space as a
material.
Energy is not a material.
cjcountess
>
> - Show quoted text -
As exibit 1,2,3,... I summit the evidence that you yourself summited.
And with that, I rest my case
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
Einstein stated:
"the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes."
Energy is not material.
Material has mass.
A material change in state is energy.
bert
> On Jan 12, 9:45 pm, bert <herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Best to think mass is frozen energy. Pressure and heat can defrost
> > this energy,and thus you have fusion in a stars core. Trebert
>
> Best to understand dark matter is aether.
>
> Best to understand aether has mass.
>
> Best to understand aether is displaced by matter.
>
> Best to understand gravity is force exerted towards matter by aether
> displaced by matter.
>
> Best to understand a moving particle has an associated aether
> displacement wave.
>
> Best to understand aether and matter are different states of the same
> material.
>
> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
> "Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
> of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
> of the electromagnetic field"
>
> The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.
>
> Best to understand matter is condensations of aether.
>
> DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
>
> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
> diminishes by L/c2."
>
> The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
> longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
> as aether. As matter converts to aether it expands in three
> dimensional space. The physical effects this transition has on the
> neighboring aether and matter is energy. Mass is conserved. Energy is
> conserved.
>
> Best to understand a change in state of that which has mass is energy.
Just a fast thought on your aether being dark matter, My thinking best
to fit it with dark energy. Reason for that is dark energy is 65% of
universe and dark matter is 30% Mass that does not radiate such as
Hydrogen,and Oxygen can last a trillion years. Iron also very long
lasting element. Bucky balls don't radiate TreBert
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -
If the photon has mass it does not dilute into aether energy as it
travels 15 billion miles through space aether. TreBert
mpc755
>
> Just a fast thought on your aether being dark matter, My thinking best
> to fit it with dark energy.
Exactly!
Dark energy is the change in state of aether emitted into and
propagating through the Universal jet.
The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.
Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.
'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html
'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our
solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion
is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed
outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule
out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right
now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the
clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'
The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or
the local Universe we exist in is, a jet.
The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet:
http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html
The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual
emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space
associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in
our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving
outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image
above, '1st Stars' is where the conditions enable aether to condense
into matter.
The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local
Universe, we exist in:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg
It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
Now, if I could only get you to understand force exerted towards
matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
cjcountess
Gravity
Do not let anyone do your thinking or interpret the evidence for you.
Look at and interpret it for yourself, as it is straight forward and
simple.
Analogous to a line of one inch in horizontal direction x a line of I
inch in vertical direction to equal 1 square inch,
1) c in horizontal direction
2) x c in vertical direction
3) = c^2
But instead of creating a square shape, energy following trajectory of
c^2 will follow a 90 degree arc trajectory which if constant creates a
circle or c in circular motion = c x 2 pi with angular momentum of h /
2pi and if amplitude is constant, which there are reasons to believe,
the energy will make two rotations at 90 degree angles to complete one
wave cycle, creating a standing spherical wave of spin ½, with angular
momentum of h /2pi/2. If the spin of trajectory is counterclockwise it
will have –1 charge.
Now following that simple line of analogy, logic, mathematics, and
geometry, what did we draw? A standing spherical wave making two
rotations to complete one wave cycle spin ½ with angular momentum of h/
2pi/2 and - 1 charge.
These are the dimensions of an electron, not to mention that this
geometry agrees exactly with Einstein’s (E=mc^2), that energy and
matter are interrelated, and convertible through conversion factor
c^2, as we see geometrically that “c^2”, is point where energy turns
to matter by taking on a circular and or spherical rotation.
Is this a Cosmic Coincidence? There are just too many points of
already established evidence that connect through a line of unbroken
logic to draw a perfect geometrical picture that exactly matches that
of electron.
This cannot be just coincidence in usual sense of the word, it would
be statistically very improbable for all this evidence to logically
connect so seamlessly, to draw such a clear picture, that matches the
evidence if it did not fit naturally because they are all apart of the
same thing. It would be like finding a bunch of scattered pieces of
material, noticing that they fit seamlessly together to form a
intricate picture, and not realizing that you have indeed found a
puzzle set that fits because it is meant to fit.
Circular motion has long been considered as a balance of two 90 degree
angular forces, a centripetal (center seeking), and a centrifugal
(center fleeing) force, called velocity squared, and appears in
equations, (F=mv^2/r), (F=mv/r^2), (a=v^2/r) and (F=mv^2=Gmm/r^2).
This reveals that the same force that traps things in gravity circular
motion, compresses energy into matter at c^2 and that (E=mc^2) =
(F=mv^2), on quantum level.
And thus special relativity equation (E=mc^2), gravity equation
(F=mv^2=Gmm/r^2), and Quantum Mechanics equation, (h/2pi/2) are
unified.
(E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled and or sphered) and (c=sqrt-1)
Quantum gravity was right under our noses all the time, all it took
was to view the most famous equation in the world, Einstein’s
(E=mc^2), geometrically.
The natural unite square root of –1 is “c”, because “c^2” creates the
natural unite –1 charge particle, or electron.
Coincidentally, this also agrees with electrical engineers description
of sqrt-1 as 90 degree angular vector pointing straight up in vertical
direction creating 90 degree angular counterclockwise rotation.
This overlaps seamlessly with my version, except that I make the 90
degree angular rotation constant, to complete a 360 degree circle, and
than make amplitude constant, to make two rotations to complete one
wave cycle, which creates standing spherical wave of (spin1/2), (–1
charge), and angular momentum of (h/2pi/2).
This is empirically verified dimensions of electron, the natural unite
–1 charge, enabling us to bring (sqrt-1), out of realm of imaginary
numbers, into realm of real natural unites, and eliminating (h/2pii/2)
as measure of uncertainty in (The Uncertainty Principle), and
replacing it with certainty, as indeed it is certain measure of
electron, as a geometrical dimensional particle, as opposed to a point
particle probability wave, that must be statistically measured every
time, as it would be statistically very improbable, the way all this
evidence fits together, that it is not correct.
Conrad J Countess
,
mpc755
> This is for everyone truely interested in the discovery of Quantum
> Gravity
>
What is presently postulated as dark matter is aether. Aether is
displaced by matter. Displaced aether is not at rest. Displaced aether
exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
The galaxy clusters in the following article are not traveling with
dark matter. The galaxy clusters are moving through the aether. The
galaxy clusters displace aether.
'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html
"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view
of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two
galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is
somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the
water."
The 'pond' consists of aether.
The 'particles' are the galaxy clusters.
The 'ripple' is an aether displacement wave.
cjcountess
reaction push back of space which allows but impedes the photon to
travel at no more than c in linear direction at constant speed through
space, after which extra energy is displaced into angular direction
creating waves from drag or compression against light barrier, which
creates mass, because any motion beyond c in linear direction in
straight line is acceleration = inertia = gravity mass. The field of
space pushes back with an equal and opposite or right angular
reaction. When energy reaches frequency/wavelength of c^2, that is c
in circular and or spherical rotation, and the field pushes back upon
that also in same manner.
If two particles of same spin are in close proximity to each other
they repel, and if they are of opposite spin, they attract, overcoming
the gravity strength with charge strength also following same inverse
square law represented with different symbols than F=mv^2=Gmm/r^2.
Nethertheless it is the same law in operation.. But just as two
magnets are in close proximity they can suspend each other against the
force of gravity in space but will give in to the gravity force, which
is still in operation once they are separated.
If large enough mass is in vicinity of small mass, the small mass will
be pushed into the larger or around it in its orbit, following the
same inverse square law of F=mv^2=Gmm/r^2
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
Because rest mass is already moving at c in circular and or spherical
rotation, any further push to it is resisted as inertia, following
same inverse square law. This is kinetic energy / relative mass
increase called Lorentz, contraction by physicist, and also has limit
of "c", upon which if it is pushed, it will unravel, returning to
energy state. This completes the energy matter cycle of E=mc^2...m=E/
c^2
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
> reaction push back of space
Gravity is a reaction push back of aether.
mpc755
Returning to aether state.
spudnik
cjcountess
Spudnik
I agree that matter is condensed energy. I am still fascinated with
your (c=sqrt2) idea you introduced me to and do see more and more how
this fits in with grand picture. This also indicates that (sqrt2) =
(sqrt-1) at some junction in space-time. Quantum Geometry is
fascinating.
Wow mpc755
You like to nit-pic over words, whose definitions in this case, for
all practical purposes, are identical, as far as my description of
space and Aether are concerned, and I don’t have time for that. To
busy making great discoveries and finding better ways to define them.
For example
It is said that the Schwarzschild radius of (r=2Gm/c^2), is a simple
solution to Einstein’s GR field equations which were supposed to
improve upon Newton’s (F= Gmm/r^2).
But upon close examination, I have discovered that Schwarzschild’s
(r=2Gm/c^2) = exactly, Newton’s (F=Gmm/r^2), on quantum level just as
(E=mc^2) =(F=mv^2) also on quantum level.
If c^2 means c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction
creating 90 degree arc trajectory which if constant creates a circle
of energy at (cx2pi), than c = r on quantum level and c^2 = r^2,
making (F=Gmm/r^2) = (r=2Gm/c^2).
IT’s true will explain later in more detail. I leave you with that for
now with confidence that someone will try but no one can disprove it
because It is as clear as day.
Conrad J Countess
cjcountess
I will deconstruct and reconstruct Schwarzschild’s
(r=2Gm/c^2) and Newton’s (F=Gmm/r^2), to easily show their equality
on quantum level, just as
I have (E=mc^2) =(F=mv^2).
This reduces to (r=Gm/c^2) for 1 quantum particle, and reveals
undeniably, that this is radous of electron, which is energy traped in
grvatational rotation, giving it rest mass, and losing its ability to
radiate at "c", in linear direction, as with nornal photons. No Black
Holes at this radius, defined as infinitely small contracting points
of energy. But indeed Black Holes, as defined as, radius at which
light becomes traped by gravity.
As far as (sqrt2) and (sqrt-1) are concerned, I no longer think that
they are equal, upon closer examination. Instead (sqrt2) seems more
equal to (c^2) and (-1) instead of ("c") and (sqrt2), which I no
longer see as equal.
Still I find the relation between these facinating, and I will
deconstruct and reconstruct those also in the simplest manner using
geometry, thereby demonstrating an exalent example of how a picture is
worth a thousand words and equations.
Conrad J Countess
Edward Green
Respectfully, you try to cram too much into one post. This limits the
opportunities for feed back.
> The major problem with contemporary physics is commonly acknowledged
> to be the incompatibility of Einstein’s general theory of relativity
> (GTR) and quantum mechanics (QM). The prospects of unifying these two
> theories into
> a quantum gravity (QG) theory seem insurmountable. Witten’s M-theory
> (and string theory in any form), perturbative QG (e.g. the Hartle-
> Hawking and Vilenkin proposals), topological Q , loop QG and other
> ideas about
> QG are not unifications but are speculations about what might belong
> to an approximation of a ‘‘complete quantum gravity theory’’ that is
> not yet known to be possible or even conceivable. No resolution of the
> incompatibility of Einstein’s GTR and QM has been achieved and there
> is none in sight. I believe that if we ponder the implications of
> Bell’s theorems we should regard GTR the same way that Popper suggests
> we regard a Special Theory of Reference (STR). Writing about Aspect’s
> confirmation of Bell’s theorems, he writes:
>
> we have to give up Einstein’s interpretation of special relativity and
> return to Lorentz’s interpretation and with it to . . . absolute space
> and time. . . . The reason for this assertion is that the mere
> existence of an infinite velocity entails [the existence] of an
> absolute simultaneity and thereby of an absolute space. Whether or not
> an infinite velocity can be attained in the transmission of signals is
> irrelevant for this argument: the one inertial system for which
> Einsteinian simultaneity coincides with absolute simultaneity . . .
> would be the system at absolute
> rest – whether or not this system of absolute rest can be
> experimentally identified. (Popper 1982: xviii, 20)
That's an interesting argument. It is a favorite and I suppose
standard observation of mine that FTL signaling does not violate
causality if isotropic said signaling is limited to a single frame of
reference. This provides a handy resolution to the Aspect experiment
but I'm not sure it is the only one. Quantum weirdists are quite
content to allow a quantum topology of influence which ignores the FTL
implications by focusing on the no-signaling condition. Furthermore it
seems possible that there is a topology of influence which is quite
separate from 3-dimensional space. Yet furthermore I have my doubts
whether the FTL propagation of influence has been established at all.
I am not familiar with the data analysis used in quantum optics
experiments, but it seems feasible to me that it is based on some
subtly wrong assumptions which are not questioned because the results
are what is, by now, expected. A favorite question of mine is whether
the results can be cast in a form that would suggest to a competent
19th century theorist that the two arms of the experiment cannot be
operating independently on once-correlated but now independent streams
of data. A Kelvin or a Maxwell or a Gibbs or a Boltzmann would be
quite capable of understanding the broad arguments involved, which do
not in any way appeal to quantum mechanics. However, they might be
dubious of internal massaging of the data according to the assumptions
of "quantum mechanics", which I think are necessary to make the
expected conclusion. This is ironic, since the beauty of Bell's test
is that it allows discrimination between the class of all feasible
local theories and its complement without any reference to the form of
the local or non-local theories, so, as I said, if we massage the data
according to the assumptions of a particular class of local theories
-- ones which sound like quantum mechanics locally -- we are not
giving nature the full benefit of the doubt in coming up with a so-
called hidden variable theory.
The bald form of the Bell experiment which could be explained to Gibbs
is that we are testing whether the correlation structure over the
various choice of observations can be compatible with drawing the
results from a single joint distribution of random variables. By a
possibly subtle argument which they would no doubt be able to grasp,
any local hidden variable theory would have this property. Any local
hidden variable theory must pass this hurdle, but not the additional
ones posed by "photons are generated in pairs, a certain percentage of
which must be thrown out of observation because of detector
efficiencies". They must, instead, explain the appearance of said
"detector efficiencies".
> If Einstein’s STR is endangered by Aspect’s confirmation of Bell’s
> theorems, it certainly seems to follow, indeed, ‘‘follow’’ in the
> sense of logical implication, that Einstein’s GTR is equally
> endangered. Does anybody
> really think that instantaneous, non-local, space-like, universe-wide
> relations of absolute simultaneity (and EPR causal correlations) are
> logically, mathematically and ontologically consistent with Einstein’s
> GTR? Of course
> not. Why is GTR not subjected to the same criticism as is STR? Could
> it be that people are thinking that we must ‘‘make do’’ with GTR ‘‘as
> approximately predicatively accurate in many cases’’ until a complete
> QG theory is
> developed, where this means a unification of GTR with QM? But what
> would be the point of unifying it with QM if we know it is
> disconfirmed even on the large scales where it is supposed to be most
> successful? The
> relation of instantaneous, non-local, absolute simultaneity is
> universe-wide; this is a large scale feature of the universe. It seems
> that to be consistent, we must treat GTR in the same way that we treat
> Newton’s theory, namely, that it is false, i.e. we know on the basis
> of observational evidence that it does not describe the nature of
> physical reality. Physical reality is not a Newtonian reality. Nor is
> it a general relativistic reality. Both Newton’s
> theory and GTR are useful for making predications within the
> approximate limited circumstances, but they do not give us a physical
> ontology.
Only in the later case if your argument rules out a physical ontology:
otherwise I think spacetime does quite handsomely in this regard. I am
a fan of ontology, BTW, by which I mean locally realistic hidden
variable theories, which I think shall ultimately prevail. But not,
necessarily in the form we favor. There is always the possibility
which I mentioned that the locally realistic theory operates on a
space quite independent of our perceived 3+1 dimensional space. Is
this what is meant by the holographic paradigm?
> They must be interpreted instrumentally, as instrumentally
> useful in certain circumstances, but they cannot be given a realist
> interpretation. What is a scientific realistic to believe about the
> nature of physical reality? A major task is to develop what may be
> called a Lorentzian GTR. Popper suggests we should adopt a Lorentzian
> theory of inertial motion or reference frames, what might be called a
> Lorentzian STR, where ‘‘STR’’ now means a Special Theory of Reference
> frames. It is a special theory since
> (like Einstein’s) it is only about inertial frames. A Lorentzian GTR
> is a General Theory of Reference frames; it is general since it is
> about both inertial and non-inertial reference frames. And just as
> Einstein’s GTR included a theory of gravity and a cosmology, so must
> our Lorentzian GTR.
>
> The key move is to (a) reject Einstein’s classical GTR and substitute
> for it a classical neo-Lorentz GTR; and to (b) select only Bohm’s 1952
> interpretation of QM, which interprets QM as a supplement to or form
> of Newtonian mechanics. As physicists use these terms, a semi-
> classical theory quantizes the matter field in the space and time. QED
> and QCD are semi-classical theories. Einstein’s GTR, Lorentz’s theory
> and Newton’s theory are classical, in that they do not quantize space
> and time or matter fields. QG theory quantitates space and time as
> well as the matter fields. I believe quantitizing space, time and
> gravity can be achieved if we choose a neo-Lorentzian theory of space,
> time and gravity and unify it with Bohm’s 1952 interpretation of QM,
> which is classical in its approach and is ‘‘a form of classical
> mechanics.’’ Specifically, Bohm accepted Halpern’s (1952: 389)
> characterization of Bohm’s ‘‘quantum mechanics as a form of classical
> mechanics involving special quantum forces.’’ By classical mechanics
> Bohm here means Newtonian mechanics, including Euclidean space,
> absolute
> Newtonian time, and two of Newton’s three laws of motion and either
> including or being consistent with gravitational non-inertial motion.
> If we give these ideas a neo-Lorentzian formulation, we have a QG
> theory,
> and the main difficulty no longer is the QM-GTR unification, but
> developing a Lorentz GTR that can reproduce the accurate predications
> of Einstein’s GTR.
>
> The reasons QG has seemed so difficult to Bohmians is the same sort of
> reason other physicists have. The problem with Bohmians is that they
> have been trying to unify de Broglie-Bohm theory with Einstein’s GTR,
> which is
> impossible, since the de Broglie-Bohm theory has a non-local, space-
> like, instantaneous, universe-wide, EPR causal correlation among
> events and this is logically incompatible with Friedman GTR’s basic
> laws that causal correlations are time-like, local, propagated at a
> finite velocity (not exceeding that of light) and are non-
> instantaneous. However, once we recognize that Aspect’s confirmation
> of Bell’s theorems disconfirms Einstein’s GTR no less than they do his
> STR, then we should look to the theory that has traditionally been
> regarded as observationally equivalent to Einstein’s STR, namely,
> Lorentz’s STR, and see if we can generalize this theory. Once we do,
> we will find that Bohm’s 1952 interpretation includes part of a
> Lorentzian GTR.
>
> A Bohm-Lorentz QG consists of ideas and equations scattered throughout
> the physics literature and which have not been conjoined and organized
> and presented as a theory. An introductory outline of how these ideas
> can
> be unified is the project of this paper. A central claim is that a neo-
> Lorentzian GTR can incorporate the results of the neo-Newtonian
> cosmology and gravity theory presented by McCrea and Milne (1934) and
> developed
> by Bondi (1960), North (1965), Sciama (1971) Peebles (1993, esp. p.
> 48), Harrison (2000: esp. pp. 323–338) and others. They show that a
> neo-Newtonian cosmology is observationally equivalent to Friedman’s
> cosmology on
> a cosmological scale. Harrison further develops this neo-Newtonian
> theory into a more comprehensive theory of gravity and shows it is
> observationally equivalent to Einstein’s GTR at smaller scales
> (Harrison, 2000: 334). But
> these physicists discuss the neo-Newtonian theory merely as a
> heuristic device for understanding Einstein’s GTR and do not discuss
> the new relevance it has given that this Neo-Newtonian theory, but not
> Einstein’s gravity
> theory, is consistent with the non-local EPR correlations.
> Furthermore, some of the problems with a more comprehensive neo-
> Newtonian gravity theory, such as Harrison’s theory, can be resolved
> if the neo-Newtonian
> equations are modified to become neo-Lorentzian equations. Bohm’s 1952
> interpretation of QM contains laws of motion that are part of the neo-
> Lorentzian equations (the part that needs to be transformed by the
> Lorentz
> transformations). The mentioned parts of Bohm’s equations become
> complete Lorentzian equations through undergoing a Lorentzian
> transformation. Bohm’s 1952 ‘‘formally classical’’ was of
> interpreting of QM (where the quantum force Q is an additional force
> to the classical forces) either implies or is already unified or
> consistent with Newton’s first two laws of motion and his universal
> law of gravitation.
>
> The phrase ‘‘quantum gravity’’ has been used to refer to a unification
> of
> Einstein’s GTR with QM. But that is not the meaning of this phrase, or
> at least it should not have such a limited meaning. I take it to mean
> a unification of a classical (non-quantum) theory of space, time,
> gravity and the
> universe with QM. QM has (supposedly) been unified with a classical
> theory of space and time (Minkowski space-time) in quantum
> electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics. The classical (non-
> quantum) theory is Minkowski’s theory of space and time. Minkowski
> space-time is a flat spacetime. Recall that Lorentz’s theory has
> traditionally been regarded as observationally equivalent to
> Einstein’s special theory of relativity (1905) or its
> space-time formulation in Minkowski (1908). If we substitute a flat
> Euclidean space and an absolute time (required by Aspect’s
> confirmation of Bell’s theorem) for Minkowski space-time, we have a
> theory that is observationally equivalent to Minkowski QED and QCD and
> also consistent with the absolute, instantaneous simultaneity that was
> observationally confirmed by Aspect’s confirmation of Bell’s
> theorems. This substitution makes all coordinate systems but one
> effective (merely apparent).
It is indeed central whether Einstein's STR relativity arises from a
microscopic "ontological" description of nature, inevitably, or
whether it is an approximation of some theory which breaks Lorentz
invariance. Of course I know that physics cannot always ask "why", but
I modify this truism by suggesting that physics should always be
asking "why" at its boundaries, even though such questions cannot take
up the bulk of practitioner's time. In this regard, I see a deficit of
why-asking at the boundary of Lorentzian invariance: whether this is
the result of something deeper or an approximation of something
deeper. There is always the possibility that Bell's theorem has not
been proven/broken and that Lorentzian invariance is absolute, for
reasons we do not fully understand at present. I do not personally
accept the Minkowskian answer as a "because" to the Lorentzian "why":
rather it is a recasting of the Lorentzian fact.
(I used to know an "Ian", and I am afraid I am taking his name in
vain :-).
> The further unification of the ‘‘relativist effects’’ (described by
> Lorentz transformation equations) with Newtonian mechanics and gravity
> shows us
> that a unification of the relativistic, Newtonian and ‘‘quantum
> effects’’ are already built into Bohm’s equations of motion. The
> classical potential V and quantum potential Q belong to the same
> equation of motion for particles,
> mdx/dt= - invrtriangle (V) - invrtriangle (Q), which provides a
> ‘‘built in’’ criterion for determining the strength of the quantum
> potential Q. The Newtonian laws in Bohm’s equations of motion are
> given a neo-Lorentzian formulation and these can provide classical
> predictions of observational data. The measurement of the degree of
> inaccuracy of the classical equations and the observational data is a
> measurement of the strength of the quantum potential’s Q contribution
> to the total causal force. However, some classical laws of motion are
> not implicit in Bohm’s theory, such as the law for gravitational
> acceleration, and these need to be built from the simpler laws that
> are implisit in Bohm’s equations of motion. An example is a non-
> gravitational equation for acceleration which I first formulate as a
> kinematic equation and then as a dynamical equation, which includes
> the mass and force. Bohm’s equations of motion, in their limit,
> include the kinematics of Newton’s second law of motion, i.e. d(v)/dt.
> A neo-Lorentzian formulation that modifies this Newtonian law of
> acceleration A is:
> Neo-Lorentz kinematic equation of acceleration
> A = dv/dt
>
> sqroot (1- v2=c2)
>
> v is velocity, v = dx/dt, the rate of change of position x with time.
> With Newton, we have d(v)/dt, but now we introduce into the kinematic
> equation the acceleration dv/dt divided by a Lorentzian factor. A is
> either the acceleration force or the acceleration field. But accurate
> predictions require that this be formulated in an equation with Bohm’s
> quantum potential Q which causally affects acceleration, as in the
> double slit experiment. A more comprehensive, dynamic acceleration
> equation will be given in Part Two. To differentiate between the
> classical and quantum potentials, a sufficiently broad neo-Lorentzian
> theory of motion, gravity and cosmology needs to be developed. -
> Quintin Smith
Here I must reluctantly leave you. One good polemic deserves another,
and all I can come up with are pieces of old polemics of mine, which
don't quite rise to your challenge. Good luck.
mpc755
> nah; matter is condensed energy !!!?
Matter evaporates into aether.
The physical act of evaporating is energy.
Aether condenses into matter.
The physical act of condensing is energy.
Energy is not a material.
Aether and matter are the material of three dimensional space.
cjcountess
You keep saying the same thing, which makes no sense to me. But I am
glad that you are distiguiseing yourself and theory from my own as it
definitely does not agree to those last statemments.
But I am not here to argue the same points over and over. just make
your statement present your evidence and let the evidence speak for
itself. That is what I prefere to do.
With that said, I present more on the convergence of (sqrt2) and
(sqrt-1,)
Sqrt2, is vector product of two equal, perpendicular vectors of
motion, where a triangles two equal perpendicular sides, representing
the two vectors, and hypotenuse or slant, representing combined
vectors. One may use "Pythagorean Theorem", to measure combined vector
as, sqrt(a^2 + b^2)
While (-1) representing natural unite electron, can also be
represented as the vector product, also, of two equal perpendicular
vectors of “c”, its “sqrt,” which is “c” in 90 degree angular,
counterclockwise direction, creating 90 degree counterclockwise
rotation, "which is also electrical engineers version sqrt-1", but is
only beginning or foundation of this more holistic, geometrical,
"sqrt-1" which makes the 90 degree arc constant, to create a circle ,
and the amplitude constant, to create standing spherical wave.
Thus sqrt2 = -1 at level of electron and sqrt-1 = sqrt(sqrt2)
Conrad J Countess
mpc755
> On Jan 17, 6:14 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 2:12 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > nah; matter is condensed energy !!!?
>
> > Matter evaporates into aether.
> > The physical act of evaporating is energy.
>
> > Aether condenses into matter.
> > The physical act of condensing is energy.
>
> > Energy is not a material.
> > Aether and matter are the material of three dimensional space.
>
> You keep saying the same thing, which makes no sense to me.
I don't understand how you can not understand the difference between
something which is material and that which is a physical effect.
If you pour water down a hill the water has mass. The flowing of the
water is energy. 'Flowing' does not have mass. It is the water which
is flowing down the hill which has mass. Flowing is a physical act.
You are riding a bike down the street. You and the bike are moving
down the street. 'Moving' does not have mass. Moving is the physical
act you and your bike are participating in. You and the bike have
mass. The motion of you and your bike is energy.
mpc755
'Moving' is not mass. Moving is a change in state of that which has
mass.